A Proposed Distinction for Neuro-Linguistic Programming - BBNLP

Message from discussion A Proposed Distinction for Neuro-Linguistic Programming
From:  "TEM" <mal...@psych.utah.edu>
To:  "BBNLP" <BBNLP@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Proposed Distinction for Neuro-Linguistic Programming
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:42:30 -0700
Message-ID: <1129732950.154665.89160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
References: <1129516016.975654.305710@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

First, thanks for finding a clearing in the forest and setting up camp,
and for bringing a good supply of water from an interesting stream.

I allow for the possibility that I'm unique in the following
limitation; myself, I have found that learning coded versions of what
geniuses do, what Dilts refers to as the "trail of techniques," has not
produced much but superficial effectiveness in my later behavior
applying those techniques.

The trail of techniques came alive for me after not one but two
modeling workshops (Grinder), and, crucially, after putting myself into
a couple contexts where it really mattered that I "be" someone else.
At that point I got it, it being more or less what John and Carmen code
in this article as the double requirement for NLP modeling.  I say
"more or less" not to challenge their code but to point out that it is
a code.  It's one thing to describe in words the requirement to suspend
verbal-analytic-conscious frames and another thing to do it.  Behind
every (well-formed, useful) code is something deep
experientially-behaviorally for the person enacting that code.  Some
assembly required.

The above applies to Analytic Modeling too.  Some people find it
difficult to learn mathematics from mathematicians; this can often be
especially the case learning from matheticians who are are the ones who
derived the theorem they are teaching.   A brilliant analytic modeler
could conceivably befuddle some people by by making brilliant
presentation to them the analytic model (in the context of being the
person who created it).  Or maybe this is just another of my own
limitations.

I'm in complete agreement with Carmen and John's proposal that NLP
modeling is the central activity of NLP.  In fact, I would extend that
(given the evidence of the import of modeling in human development from
infancy through all the stages of life) to say modeling is the central
activity of  evolving as a human.  Or could be, if adults were reminded
how to do it.

My proposal is simple.  Remind adults how to do it.  In teaching any
verbally coded version of a pattern of genius, also (first) teach
people to model someone who can utilize that coded pattern with
excellence.  This means getting behind Carmen's and John's two criteria
and setting up provocative contexts where people learn to do #1 and
then test themselves with #2.
	Why wouldn't every NLP workshop do that?
Of course, after the participants learn to model someone who can use
the pattern effectively, the verbally coded pattern may (or may not) be
irrelevant.  Maybe my proposal only plays, once again, to my weakness;
maybe many (most) other people can learn a coded pattern, practice it a
bit, a step into the shoes of genius; not me.

I'm exploring this right now in some teaching I'm doing:  combining the
teaching of coded patterns with a foundation in modeling someone who
can do the pattern effectively.  I make no claims other than I'm
exploring.  It's a pleasure to come out of the woods (Forest?  What
forest?  All I saw was trees.) occasionally and find a clearing with
other explorers who've brought water from a stream and have a drink
handy.